Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. George Sandulescu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists there does not seem to be a strong consensus over whether the notability guideline for professors is fulfilled, or indeed even if it's the best way of determining the notability of the subject. Referencing of the article has nonetheless improved over the course of the debate, but it does not seem to have attracted a strong consensus either way. ~ mazca ^talk 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. George Sandulescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit criteria 2-9, and he probably doesn't meet criterion 1, either. Also, it's worth noting that this was created by User:Lidiavianu, whose name is mentioned in the article and who added this spam-like link to another article. Also editing the article was User:Bezeauainfuriata, creator of—you guessed it—Lidia Vianu. So there's probably a conflict of interest/sockpuppetry going on as well. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with reference expanded with dates - Notability for scholars needs just one criteria within WP:PROF. The subject being the editor (I don't think its big enough to have a editor-in-chief) of the journal of the Nordic Association of Linguists (though I have not been able to identify the date). This journal is now published by Cambridge (was Taylor & Francis - changed in 2003) but seems within this esoteric field to be a sufficient creditable publication (WP:PROF criteria # 8) - It would be nice to get a date for the editorship. He was the director of the Princes Grace Irish library - I'd used their web site in August 2009 when I'd created the Edmund Curtis page (to support a reference in the rather touchy topic of the Laudabiliter article) and when I created the Thomas Reid (naval surgeon) article. Along with the books in this subject (Joyce/Wilde) as editor or author then overall the article should be kept. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address just one point you made: how do we know he was director of the library in Monaco? And if so, why would that necessarily contribute to his notability? In other words, the library may be a notable one, but that doesn't necessarily reflect his notability, although it might. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here [1] in this book on page 282 it mentions him being the director. Within the narrow field of Irish studies this library is considered to be a "a tribute to Irish achievements in literature" so a trustworthy source. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added some solid references. Care to take another look at my page? 188.27.187.81 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 188.27.187.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A Romanian scholar of James Joyce: how unusual! h index only 4 in a weakly cited field so will have to rely on other than WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Ttiotsw - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per X isn't a valid rationale at AfD, although that hasn't stopped you from invoking it countless times ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and so forth.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per me etc - the NOM's issues have been addressed. Unless this somehow attracts Irish/Joycean studies conversant editors (or literary critics who can judge the merit of the author's books or Journal editorship) this AfD will hang around forever with a 1x NOM and 1 x Keep. How do we attract subject matter experts to Wikipedia ? Well leaving the article as it is would be one way rather than deletion. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One simply can search by important terms in the field, and look at citation numbers for Sandulescu. For example, Sandulescu does not appear in the first 100 returns for "Finnegans Wake", nor in the first 300 returns for Joyce Ulysses. Abductive (reasoning) 12:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.